18 posts in this topic

This is welcomed news for GM and many planned future products. I would hope this will remove the hold on the future Zeta cars and move Alpha forward. Detroit will need to stay moving ahead in fuel milage to stave off any more problems with DC

House puts off tougher fuel economy rules

Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- House leaders decided Wednesday to put off a potentially divisive fight over auto fuel-economy rules, leaving until September the debate over how high a hurdle they'll set for the embattled domestic carmakers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said late Wednesday that the House will not consider competing proposals to change Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards when the House takes up a comprehensive energy bill this week. The House is expected to vote on the package this week.

The decision means the Big 3 automakers have dodged, for now, passage of a tough set of CAFE standards proposed by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., which would have boosted vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. It has wide support among House Democrats, including Pelosi.

Markey agreed to withdraw his proposal, offered as an amendment to the energy bill, as did Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., who had offered a weaker set of mileage standards favored by the auto industry.

Despite the reprieve, it is unclear whether Wednesday's decision to delay the debate is good news, in the long run, for the Big 3. It's possible the issue won't be resolved until a House-Senate conference committee meets to iron out differences between the competing versions of the bill. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, who generally favor tougher standards, will appoint members of the conference committee.

House Democrats also avoided what could have been a difficult intra-party battle. Pelosi and many other House Democrats favor higher standards than the auto industry supports. But Rep. John Dingell, D-Detroit, powerful chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and perhaps the Big 3's biggest advocate in Washington, has sparred with Pelosi over CAFE.

Car companies, including the domestic carmakers and some foreign firms, have opposed high mileage standards such as those in the Markey plan, calling them unachievable.

Environmental groups have kept up the pressure for higher standards, saying they are vital to fight global climate change. Supporters of higher standards won a victory earlier this year in the Senate, which approved a set of CAFE proposals opposed by the industry and by Michigan lawmakers.

Sen. Carl Levin, now a spectator of the House debate after a bruising June battle in the Senate, said earlier Wednesday he hoped the House would adopt the Hill-Terry language instead of delaying the debate.

"It would be better if they take up Hill-Terry and it wins," Levin, D-Detroit, told Michigan reporters. Levin, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and other auto-industry supporters tried and failed to get a similar plan, more friendly to the Big 3, included in the Senate bill.

"While there will be no House vote on CAFE before the recess, the issue will remain in September," said Dave McCurdy, who heads the Auto Alliance, an umbrella lobbying group for carmakers.

Pelosi repeated Wednesday her support for higher standards.

"The American people, in every region of the country, overwhelmingly support stronger fuel-efficiency standards, and we will have an opportunity to address this issue shortly," Pelosi said in a written statement. "The Senate energy bill does contain a CAFE provision, which I support."

Markey's bill would have required automakers to meet an average of 35 mpg one year earlier than the provision included in the Senate bill passed in June. The Hill-Terry plan includes a 35 mpg requirement by 2022.

Markey, on one side, and Hill and Rep. Lee Terry on the other, have been working for weeks to line up supporters behind their competing proposals. Hill and Terry got support earlier Wednesday from the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative House Democrats, who endorsed the Hill-Terry legislation.

"While fuel-economy standards are an important part of the solution, we must also be mindful of the role automakers play in the American economy," Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., said in a statement released by the Blue Dogs.

Markey had said he has as many as 200 supporters for his bill. He said Wednesday he was confident the bill that eventually reaches the president's desk will include the kind of increase he supports.

Several states also weighed in Wednesday against the Hill-Terry proposal. Attorneys general from California and a dozen other states warned in a letter to Pelosi that the plan might curtail their ability to set their own limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from autos. The states have sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to set their own carbon-emissions rules on cars, something auto companies oppose.

Dingell and Pelosi had argued earlier this year over a plan Dingell had introduced that would pre-empt states' ability to set rules tougher than federal regulations

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It won't even work. People have in their minds an idea of what they want to pay for fuel in a week, or a month. Make vehicles 20% more efficient and they buy a larger vehicle that uses 20% more fuel. You have to give people an economic or social incentive to buy a smaller, more expensive, but more efficient vehicle.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So they put it off for 30-45 days...so what? This really shouldn't be a "welcomed news". Welcomed news would be this getting shot the hell down in favor of something to do with alternative fuels...you know, the stuff every f'ing automaker is currently working on?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why do they single out the Big Three? This would harm any other manufacturer that builds a full-size truck, SUV, or luxury / sports car.

because automakers get credit for "unused" fuel economy they can carry-over from year to year. so a lot of the import manufacturers who mostly sold fuel saving econobox's have a good bank to use. The big 3 who sell a lot of gas using SUV's and trucks don't have as many (if any?) credits saved up, so this will hit them harder

Imports (less than 75% north american content) also have different CAFE rules than domestics.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

because automakers get credit for "unused" fuel economy they can carry-over from year to year. so a lot of the import manufacturers who mostly sold fuel saving econobox's have a good bank to use. The big 3 who sell a lot of gas using SUV's and trucks don't have as many (if any?) credits saved up, so this will hit them harder

Imports (less than 75% north american content) also have different CAFE rules than domestics.

See, there is so much wrong with that entire process that it isn't even funny IMO.

Why should import automakers be cut a break in any way? What, because they can't seem to break into the large truck market, now we're going to GIVE IT TO THEM (Believe it or not, I'm sure that is some of the motivation)

And why should import autos ingeneral have DIFFERENT regulations??? they now make up a LARGE part of the market. So, since they're NOT MADE IN AMERICA, they get to pollute more by default.

Pure bull&#036;h&#33;.... the kind of bull&#036;h&#33; that this country and our JOKE for a government is becoming world famous for.

Link to post

Share on other sites

All of the US-based readers of this forum should be calling their congresspeople and voicing their opinions. There is nothing good about CAFE standards for anyone. It accomplished nothing the first time they were passed and nothing will happen now... at least nothing good for the domestics and certainly won't accomplished the intended goal. As is so typical of everything in congress today, they're meddling in things they don't understand so they can pander for votes. As I've said before, if they want to slow down fuel consumption, they should do it by raising the gas tax. Doing so will not hurt any particular manufacturer and will accomplish the goal.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It accomplished nothing the first time they were passed and nothing will happen now... at least nothing good for the domestics and certainly won't accomplished the intended goal.

Some believe that Ford and Chrysler would have gone out of business in the early 1980's had CAFE not forced them to abandon the 1970's gas guzzlers and develop FWD cars like the K cars and the Escort/Lynx. But I think that the new higher CAFE standards could easily destroy truck dependent Ford and Chrysler. There's no way you can develop a 30 mpg (combined city/highway) Dodge Ram or F150.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And why should import autos ingeneral have DIFFERENT regulations??? they now make up a LARGE part of the market. So, since they're NOT MADE IN AMERICA, they get to pollute more by default.

They don't. i think it was "the griffon" who explained this a month or so ago. Each manufacturer has three distinct fleet averages to meet. One is cars, a second (lower one) is trucks and the third are imported vehicles. The savings from imported small cars like the aveo or the Yaris can't be used to average out large domestic vehicles, but rather can average out fuel inefficient imported vehicles. In the case of GM that means the Aveo averages out the Australian GTO but not the Deville.

This is further complicated by the fact that the first two fleets are law mandated entities, but the imported fleet average part of CAFE is an EPA imposed regulation and they can end it themselves with out congressional consent. I hop[e i got all that correct.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

They don't. i think it was "the griffon" who explained this a month or so ago. Each manufacturer has three distinct fleet averages to meet. One is cars, a second (lower one) is trucks and the third are imported vehicles. The savings from imported small cars like the aveo or the Yaris can't be used to average out large domestic vehicles, but rather can average out fuel inefficient imported vehicles. In the case of GM that means the Aveo averages out the Australian GTO but not the Deville.

This is further complicated by the fact that the first two fleets are law mandated entities, but the imported fleet average part of CAFE is an EPA imposed regulation and they can end it themselves with out congressional consent. I hop[e i got all that correct.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All of the US-based readers of this forum should be calling their congresspeople and voicing their opinions. There is nothing good about CAFE standards for anyone. It accomplished nothing the first time they were passed and nothing will happen now... at least nothing good for the domestics and certainly won't accomplished the intended goal. As is so typical of everything in congress today, they're meddling in things they don't understand so they can pander for votes. As I've said before, if they want to slow down fuel consumption, they should do it by raising the gas tax. Doing so will not hurt any particular manufacturer and will accomplish the goal.

Works for Canada. Works in Europe. If you want to drive a Hummer, fine, but at $4 or $5 a gallon you will drive a lot LESS or you will have to get a second job. Otherwise, buy a Malibu or Cobalt.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

They should send over most of the political hacks and bureaucrats: Iran would collapse in a month.

If the U.S. lowered its purchases of oil from international markets (through a combination of CAFE, lowered speed limits, rationing, increased oil exploration in Florida and Alaska, etc.) Iran would collapse in two weeks. Russia would follow soon after which would be even more significant as they are supplying nuclear capabilities to Iran and modern weapon systems to both Iran and Syria.